"For All We Know" is a classic of the Great American Songbook, music by J. Fred Coots and lyrics by Sam M. Lewis (1934).

It never ceases to amaze that something so profound could have been written that long ago. It deals with epistemology and cognitive closure. The first term is that branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge - what does it mean to say that you know something, for example, that there will be a tomorrow (think of a large object colliding with the sun)? In the lyrics you find, "Tomorrow was made for some, tomorrow may never come." The second term, cognitive closure, refers to things that are beyond and permanently out of reach of human knowledge, as expressed by, "We come, we go, like ripples on a stream." "Here today, gone today" as I like to say. And where to from there? Cognitive closure. Finally, remember that, "This may only be a dream." How do you know it isn't?

FOR ALL WE KNOW https://soundcloud.com/aleckrand/for-all-we-know

Aleck Rand: vocal, guitar, keyboard
RT artists: Neil Swainson, bass; Terry Clarke, drums; Eric Marienthal, alto sax.

Really nice guitar playing Aleck, very cool. And soulfully delivered lyrics.

(NB: we're not supposed to post non-originals here: "The songs must be originals, no copyrighted or "cover" songs. You must have all of the rights to the songs.")

Hi Dean,

great vocals and guitar as always.

Guenter

Thank your favorable comments Skyline.

Actually, I do have all the rights to perform this song. Please see my signature below, i.e., my ASCAP license to stream my own versions of any of the 8.5 million tunes whose copyrights this organization manages. I pay a substantial yearly fee to maintain this license.

For complete information:

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/math/clark/

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/math/clark/reviews

https://www.ascap.com/mylicense/

Thank you Guenter.

Dean

"That long ago," - is just a flash in the pan compared to the when and where of the definition.

Aristotle wrote of the epitemology, matter of fact he coined the term, "self-evident truth" to describe the method of reduction that can only go back as far as a self evident truth and no further. He also showed that this was the only way to proof a certain statement or idea and that if it did not reduce to the self evident truth, the statement was very likely to be false.

These things were taught to high school students at one time, the songwriters of the 30s were very familiar with such concepts. Today, one has to be a Philosophy major at university to even hear of them, much less study same, and the Philosophy department's viewpoint has become rather myopic IMO as well.

Nice tune, I agree.


--Mac

Nice job . . . got that Leonard Cohen vibe in this one.

Later,

Nice old jazz styling and I like your playing.

Hi, Dean !

I liked this tune and
especially your passionate
vocals !! :))
Good to hear that your voice
is in shape again !:)))

Cheers
Dani

MAC!! You continue to surprise me.

You're right on many counts: It took about 2000 years and the assault of

skepticism (everything can be doubted, there is no knowledge; how do you know that you're not in The Matrix, lying in a nutrient filled bath with a virtual reality being pumped into your brain?)

Skepticism brought forth Descartes to ask, "Is there anything I cannot doubt." His answer was "when I am doubting something, I know that I'm doubting it." So, there is at least one thing Descartes thought could be know for certain. Actually, his conclusion was too strong because he inserts the presence of an "I" - a self. What he was entitled to know was that something was doubting.

Here's a little thought experiment for everyone to consider:

You forgot your watch at home and you're walking past an atomic clock that indicates it is exactly 2 o'clock. In fact, at that moment it is 2 o'clock, exactly. There are no tricks in this experiment. Now, do you know that it's two o'clock?

And, oh yeah, it is a nice tune. Thanks.

Dean

Hi Dani,

Actually, I did this before my James Brown calamity. My voice is still in recovery.

But I'm very happy that you liked this tune. Man, are you gonna like Close ..

Dean

Acually, atomic clocks have never been correct as to the real date and time, which is a planetary time event.

And -- since Barry Setterfield back in '81 first published his work showing that the speed of light has actually been slowing down and not a constant, more and more physicists are finally climbing on board that undeniable bit of hard evidence. Turns out that c is NOT a constant...


--Mac

Guitar is impeccable, has a Louis Armstrong, What a Wonderful World feel thanks for sharing!



My Music

I am slowly learning to appreciate jazz music. As a guitar player I appreciate how difficult it is to master this style. I really enjoyed this song. The history of how music evolved is amazing.. I enjoyed your comments on this as well..

Scott

Great thread and we also very much enjoyed the tune. A fine interpretation.


FWIW my favorite from Descartes: "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." It has a Zen feel to it.

Aleck, I love the guitar playing and the vocal. Great intro. Thanks for posting. Tom

Hey Tommy,

Thanks so much for the positive review.

Dean

Thank you PGFantastic.

I'm flatted to be compared to The Mighty Louis.

I once heard some critic say this about him, "Great ideas, perfect intonation, crummy voice. You got a problem with that?" Yup, I got the crummy voice down pat - I know it sounds like it's been marinating in Bourbon and cigarette smoke for years, but I want to assure everyone that none of the above is true.

No, I've always been a Scotch man and I love my cigars. After dinner? Yummm ...

Aleck

Ah, a reference to Descartes from Janice and Bud. Sweet. And now the answer to the puzzle involving the clock:

(1) It really is 2 o'clock
(2) You believe it is 2 o'clock, because ...
(3) The clock tower says it is 2 o'clock, and finally

(4) No, you do not know that it is 2 o'clock.

It took about two thousand years for philosophers to come up with a reasonable definition of knowledge, even though it isn't perfect: knowledge is true justified belief.

For you to say that know something, call it X, means that

(1) You believe X.
(2) X is true.
(3) Your belief in X is justified.

It is in (3) where the claim to know it is 2 o'clock breaks down. You see, the day before at exactly 2, the clock broke and it's hands have been fixed in this position right up to the moment - purely by coincidence - you walked by and looked at that clock. Your belief that it is 2 o'clock is not justified. Clock ... she broke, man!

Dean

We'll have to disagree concerning the postmodern assessment of how to differentiate the Truth, my friend.


Said the Engineer whose designs absolutely MUST work and not cause harm to others.


I have to deal only with Absolute Truths, you see.

The problem with the Relative Truth stance is that it is always stated as being Absolute.

And that is self-defeated before the conversation begins.


--Mac

Hi Dean,

Another good one! I'm just going back to ponder over your philosophies now.

Regards,
Noel

Hey Mac,

I don't think we disagree so much. As a recovering mathematician and workaholic, I know a bit about the truth in its various forms. One reason I went into the field was because the truths of mathematics are necessary truths. They are absolute, not contingent, hold in all possible worlds, and are the reason that engineers can rely on their calculations holding true - as long as they don't miss anything important. Think of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge - they used to call it Gallopin' Gertie - back in the day when engineers had limited understanding of the minimum "stiffness" required of such a structure. At the right wind speeds, the suspended roadway would resonate - explosively so on the day they recorded the bridge collapsing on film. I'm sure you've seen the movie.

EVERYONE - IF YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THE TACOMA NARROWS BRIDGE COLLAPSE YOU SHOULD NOT MISS THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw

It's not that 1 + 1 = 5 is just wrong, it is unthinkable. It follows necessarily from axioms, undefined foundational statements, that allow the construction of the natural numbers 1,2,3, ...

I disavow relative truth, postmodernism, new age music, energy bracelets, the philosophy of Sun Ra, etc., etc. I just stated the standard elementary definition of knowledge as true, justified belief. No definitions of "belief", "justification," or "true" were given - in this case they are undefined axioms.

Of course, we could use a lot of space pursuing this, but I've got something much better for you. I'll post it in the Off Topic Forum and I'll put your name in the title.

You gonna luv it, mon.

Dean

Hi Noel,

Take a look at my latest post in the Off Topic Forum. You might enjoy this.

Dean

PS And thanks for your encouraging remarks

Here is a more up to date example than the Tacoma Narrows Bridge incident:


emphasis added

Ravi Zacharias said that.


--Mac

I'm wit' you on that, bud.

Dean

hi aleck great guitar work love the tone and licks very well done thanks eric

Dean,

If imitation is the sincerest form of compliment, then I just wish you lived nearby so I could take lessons from you and eventually and feebly imitate what you do.

Kinda sad that I can't even imitate you straight up, I have to have to imagine a remote scenario in which I might eventually acquire the ability to imitate what you do.

;-)
but the point is that you are worth imitating, whether anyone else is capable of it or not.

Pat,

Hey,where you bin bud? If you've been hanging out at the Off Topic forum, I thought I might see something from you regarding my two posts involving you, Mac and RHarv.

Is it possible that silence = circumspection?

Hey, pal, let me tell you something about imitation, something I found out the hard way. When I first heard Wes Montgomery, I was completely blown away. It was as though Wes had part of my brain and I had part of Wes's brain. I was already playing with my thumb (learned from Gene Autry and Roy Rogers) and said to myself, "Now, I wanna sound like THAT!"

So I did what all aspiring jazz musicians have done through the ages. I sat with the vinyl records (on the Riverside label) and laboriously copied every one of Wes's licks and wore the vinyl through to the other side.

A few years later, after I could really move that thumb and play octaves and chord solos, I was at Manny's Music on 47th street in New York, where I grew up. I was looking to buy a guitar and was comping the blues, when I heard this wicked alto sax soloing on my chords. I recognized who it was by the sound, so I thought I'd really impress with some machine-gun octaves and chords.

So, out walks Cannonball Adderley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannonball_Adderley - the guy who launched Wes's career - offering me a cigarette. He says, "You can play kid, but you'll go nowhere as a Wes Montgomery sound-alike. If people want to hear Wes, why settle for you?" Then, Cannonball Adderley says something I've heard a million times: "You have to find your own voice."

Yeah, so what if you spend 20 years practicing and you do find your own voice and discover that you don't like it, and would much prefer a different voice? That happened to me.

In going back to the drawing board, I found that the goal for me was "lick-less" improvising, or nearly so. I would form a mental map of the guitar fingerboard so that a melodic idea in my head would be instantly "visible" on the fretboard. I've partially succeeded at this and it is a never ending process.

I'll finish by thanking you for the extravagant praise and, for what it's worth, repeating this hackneyed phrase: "You have your own voice to find, pal. Imitation has no payoff."

Dean

Although I see truth in that statement, The application of it depends on the participants desire to "go somewhere"

I do agree that in order to be an ARTIST who does original material and hopes to stand out in the crowd, an original sound is useful if not downright necessary.

But, people who play cover songs have to be chameleons.

I've been in clubs where aspiring artists play their original songs, with their signature sound... and nobody cares. Next week somebody's playing Proud Mary and people are up dancing. My only explanation for this is that to the average person, music is the closest thing to a time machine they'll ever find.

When I listen to songs from the 70's I feel like I'm 18 years old again... and even the best current original song lacks the power to duplicate that effect. And at age 60, I'm quite sure I ain't "going anywhere" except maybe to hell in a handbasket

;-)

the praise is sincere, BTW

Dean,

No desire to comment on the philosophy or the mathematics, but the song is delightful. Just a wonderful listen. Similar in feel to the early ballads of Tom Waits.

Delightful.

floyd